binocular wrote:Given the ways of samsara, it seems inevitable that there comes a point where one has to defend one's religion even with violent means.I doubt those monks want to cause harm; it just appears that the situation has progressed to the point where, for worldly intents and purposes, nothing except violent means can hope to resolve it.Worldly intents and purposes cannot be ignored.

It would be better for the entire dispensation to disappear here and now than have it be sustained in the world through violence. Killing is never skillful, and each and every monk who recommends violence against the Royhinga, or anyone else, should be denounced and disrobed. I do not care in the least about "worldly intents and purposes" when they conflict with the Blessed One's teachings.

Gain and loss, status and disgrace, censure and praise, pleasure and pain:these conditions among human beings are inconstant,impermanent, subject to change.

Killing is never skillful, and each and every monk who recommends violence against the Royhinga, or anyone else, should be denounced and disrobed.

Agree. Where are the Senior Bhikkhus of that Tradition? Why are they silent?

with karuna,Chris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

I always find it interesting when people seem shocked that Buddhist monks/lay populations are capable of violence – In the West, there is a pervasive romantic view of Buddhism as nothing but a peaceful philosophy/psychology/religion (interestingly, also endorsed and perpetuated by mass-media and consumerism). Buddhism, as practised by millions, is a man-made organised religion; a state religion in many cases.

When a powerful state religion is wielded as a political tool, especially in countries that are intrinsically hierarchical, the rule of the elite is given extraordinary strength. Look at the example in Thailand during the pro-democracy protests, a high-standing monk went on radio stating that it was fine to kill ‘communists’ and no negative karma would be gained.

Even if there is no direct order from the political elite in these countries, cultural prejudices and intolerance act in just the same way. The pogroms in Russia serve as an example that bears more than a few similarities!

Organised religion, both intentionally and unintentionally, has always had this side-effect, and Buddhism has never been an exception; it’s just our own conception and interpretation of our ‘Buddhism’, and more generally, the West’s romanticised projection colours the lens we look through.

binocular wrote:Given the ways of samsara, it seems inevitable that there comes a point where one has to defend one's religion even with violent means.I doubt those monks want to cause harm; it just appears that the situation has progressed to the point where, for worldly intents and purposes, nothing except violent means can hope to resolve it.Worldly intents and purposes cannot be ignored.

It would be better for the entire dispensation to disappear here and now than have it be sustained in the world through violence. Killing is never skillful, and each and every monk who recommends violence against the Royhinga, or anyone else, should be denounced and disrobed. I do not care in the least about "worldly intents and purposes" when they conflict with the Blessed One's teachings.

cooran wrote:

Killing is never skillful, and each and every monk who recommends violence against the Royhinga, or anyone else, should be denounced and disrobed.

Agree. Where are the Senior Bhikkhus of that Tradition? Why are they silent?

If someone were to come to cause you and your loved ones harm, what would you do?Would you just stand there and let them do it?

Security's tight in my Muslim majority neighbourhood again. Well, the local Muslims' own security is anyway. I don't see much in the way of police presence at night. Some articles circulating online from journalists who have spoken to some of the local Muslims report that, if there is a conflict, they'll go to one of the local monasteries to bring sayadaws to resolve tension, rather than the police. In the recent bout of violence there were a fair few reports of monks intervening to calm things too.

After talking to a few people bearing 969 stickers in Yangon I'm not convinced each and every one who displays such stickers is a hardened Buddhist terrorist/militant in support of ethnic cleansing, although an uncomfortably high number continue to display some very unappealing attitudes towards Muslims (not so much Christians or Hindus). It's complex and would take up a small treatise to explain my limited and largely ignorant perspective. As for the 969 movement outside of Yangon (where it's a whole other world), I don't know and I'm not sure many others do either - ask 4 different people and you'll get 8 different answers.

binocular wrote:If someone were to come to cause you and your loved ones harm, what would you do?Would you just stand there and let them do it?

Lord Buddha wrote:"Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal."

The Buddha very clearly discusses in the Pali Canon that a Buddhist SHOULD NOT kill in retaliation to killing. Even if this were a case of Muslim aggression Buddhists and especially monastics should not be involved in genocide like this. It is important to remember that in the Buddha's own lifetime his clan was eradicated by a rival clan, and he did not react with the slightest bit of ill will or violence. If these are followers of the Buddha, why are they acting in this way?

Paribbajaka wrote:The Buddha very clearly discusses in the Pali Canon that a Buddhist SHOULD NOT kill in retaliation to killing. Even if this were a case of Muslim aggression Buddhists and especially monastics should not be involved in genocide like this. It is important to remember that in the Buddha's own lifetime his clan was eradicated by a rival clan, and he did not react with the slightest bit of ill will or violence.

If these are followers of the Buddha, why are they acting in this way?

Maybe they are not enlightened, and so have to resort to worldly means for their self-protection.

Paribbajaka wrote:The Buddha very clearly discusses in the Pali Canon that a Buddhist SHOULD NOT kill in retaliation to killing. Even if this were a case of Muslim aggression Buddhists and especially monastics should not be involved in genocide like this. It is important to remember that in the Buddha's own lifetime his clan was eradicated by a rival clan, and he did not react with the slightest bit of ill will or violence.

If these are followers of the Buddha, why are they acting in this way?

Maybe they are not enlightened, and so have to resort to worldly means for their self-protection.

That doesn't mean it is permissible or that we should not call those who have ordained in the Buddha Sasana out on behavior that is immoral and that the Buddha strictly prohibited. Compassion and understanding for those who perpetrate violence, yes. But IMO we should not be silent and it is quite right to ask why the senior monks in Burma seem to be.

Just because we/they are unenlightened does not make us/them mindless robots or somehow unable to keep sila or act in the proper manner for a Bhikkhu. Plenty manage it, I'm sure.

"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared." Iti 26

Coyote wrote:Just because we/they are unenlightened does not make us/them mindless robots or somehow unable to keep sila or act in the proper manner for a Bhikkhu. Plenty manage it, I'm sure.

This. I'm sorry, but it is pretty clear that in a Buddhist worldview, violence is never the answer. Those who kill in the name of Buddhism, a thought system based on goodwill and non-harm, are hypocrites, plain and simple. This is ignoring the fact that much of the violence seems to be initiated by the sangha instead of them simply defending themselves.

I understand that real life can be messy, and that every Buddhist country throughout history has had standing armies, but it is especially reprehensible for monastics to engage in violence, as they have dedicated their lives to Buddhism and should certainly not be a)killing b)spreading racial or theological hatredc)getting involved with worldly politics

They have all taken vows as such.

As far as defending home and family, Bhikkhu literally translates as beggar, monks have "left home", and are living the "homeless life" , and even get new names to signify the end of their lay life. If this is the case, what home and family are they defending (this may sound harsh, but once again all of the, have willingly taken this path.)

A number of people involved in this thread have suggested that while some monastics in Burma have advocated violence few have condemned it. I want to point out the following recent statement by Ashin Nyanissara (Sitagu Sayadaw's):

Bhikkhu Cintita wrote:A number of people involved in this thread have suggested that while some monastics in Burma have advocated violence few have condemned it. I want to point out the following recent statement by Ashin Nyanissara (Sitagu Sayadaw's):

binocular wrote:If someone were to come to cause you and your loved ones harm, what would you do?Would you just stand there and let them do it?

I don't quite see how your line of questioning applies to the situation in Burma. The violence there, for the most part, is being carried out by a majority population against minorities.

Are you trying to build up an argument in favor of ethnic cleansing? Please clarify.

Oh please.

When discussing such issues, there's the danger to take things out of context. My suspicion is that the situation slowly progressed to a boiling point. Perhaps at first, the Buddhists tried to be "good Buddhists," and have tolerated the abuse from the minority, thus enabling it and letting it grow. Until they couldn't be "good Buddhists" anymore.

It is said that three small things must not be neglected: a small fire, a small snake, and a small prince. It seems that the situation in Burma may have been a case of neglecting a small fire.

Coyote wrote:That doesn't mean it is permissible or that we should not call those who have ordained in the Buddha Sasana out on behavior that is immoral and that the Buddha strictly prohibited.

Noone said it is permissible. But them not being enlightened could explain why they act the way they do.

Compassion and understanding for those who perpetrate violence, yes. But IMO we should not be silent and it is quite right to ask why the senior monks in Burma seem to be.

There is the issue of instructing someone who is not one's student.

Just because we/they are unenlightened does not make us/them mindless robots or somehow unable to keep sila or act in the proper manner for a Bhikkhu. Plenty manage it, I'm sure.

Lord Buddha wrote:"Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal."

The Buddha very clearly discusses in the Pali Canon that a Buddhist SHOULD NOT kill in retaliation to killing. Even if this were a case of Muslim aggression Buddhists and especially monastics should not be involved in genocide like this. It is important to remember that in the Buddha's own lifetime his clan was eradicated by a rival clan, and he did not react with the slightest bit of ill will or violence. If these are followers of the Buddha, why are they acting in this way?

Perhaps those Buddhists there are not retaliating, perhaps they are not acting with anger and hatred.One cannot just assume what the intention for another person's action is.

Bhikkhu Cintita wrote:A number of people involved in this thread have suggested that while some monastics in Burma have advocated violence few have condemned it. I want to point out the following recent statement by Ashin Nyanissara (Sitagu Sayadaw's):

When discussing such issues, there's the danger to take things out of context. My suspicion is that the situation slowly progressed to a boiling point. Perhaps at first, the Buddhists tried to be "good Buddhists," and have tolerated the abuse from the minority, thus enabling it and letting it grow. Until they couldn't be "good Buddhists" anymore.

binocular wrote:Perhaps those Buddhists there are not retaliating, perhaps they are not acting with anger and hatred.One cannot just assume what the intention for another person's action is.

I appreciate the irony here, don't get me wrong. You make the point that we cannot assume intentions, when a few posts previously you concoct a scenario that has no supporting evidence in order to try to generate some sympathy for ethnic pogroms.

All evidence seems to indicate that Buddhism and Buddhists were not threatened by the Muslims in Burma. This could be a case of bias in english reports, but let's be honest Buddhism holds a "model religion" reputation in the West and Islam is often associated with extremism, so if any bias would occur it would be this underlying bias (and no, this doesn't mean that the media shook up the sterotypes for publicity, as if that were the case these issues would be much more prominent than they are.)

You can't seem to decide why this issue should be dismissed: you have offered that the monks are unenlightened and therefore racism and violence are a-ok, that they are acting in self defense when it is relatively clear they are not, and that we cannot guess their intention or emotional state as if there is a positive, loving state of mind that one may commit racial hatred in. I do not feel that any of these hold up in the slightest. You now offer that Islam was some pernicious force that slowly grew to threaten the innocent Burmese monks, which has no foundation in any of what has been reported by any news source. As I said earlier in this thread, sometimes supporting the sangha includes being aware of when members of it are unskillful. Making excuses like this only muddies the waters and allows bad behavior like this to flourish.

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." (SN 22.97)

Paribbajaka wrote:You can't seem to decide why this issue should be dismissed: you have offered that the monks are unenlightened and therefore racism and violence are a-ok,

Making excuses like this only muddies the waters and allows bad behavior like this to flourish.

Don't twist around what I said.

that they are acting in self defense when it is relatively clear they are not, and that we cannot guess their intention or emotional state as if there is a positive, loving state of mind that one may commit racial hatred in. I do not feel that any of these hold up in the slightest. You now offer that Islam was some pernicious force that slowly grew to threaten the innocent Burmese monks, which has no foundation in any of what has been reported by any news source. As I said earlier in this thread, sometimes supporting the sangha includes being aware of when members of it are unskillful. Making excuses like this only muddies the waters and allows bad behavior like this to flourish.

You've just demonstrated what is potentially a beginning for a bloody fight.

You twist around what I said. If I were to just let it pass, you'd continue believing that you are right, that you represent me correctly, and then you'd twist around some more. Until the situation progressed to a point where only force can stop you.

You now offer that Islam was some pernicious force that slowly grew to threaten the innocent Burmese monks, which has no foundation in any of what has been reported by any news source.

The small fire I'm referring to could be the Muslims claiming, for example, that Buddhism is wrong or of the devil. Which they do, and which "good Buddhists" probably usually just let pass. And then come the consequences of letting it pass.

Last edited by Alex123 on Sat May 04, 2013 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."